Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebuttals to the cosmological argument

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 23:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttals to the cosmological argument

Death to all POV forks must be applied irrespective of the author's merit and irrespective of the history of the article. Just stacking more pastel shaded boxes in front of the article doesn't help. Either transwiki to WikiBooks/Theology or dump into Talk:Cosmological argument for merciless editing. --Pjacobi 20:35, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

• weak keep. I agree this needs heavy editing to improve the tone and POVness of it, however I feel that this can be done. On whether this is best presented as a separate article or as part of cosmological argument I'm neutral, but the subject matter is worthy of inclusion somewhere imho. Thryduulf 20:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If an article is too long and needs to be forked, it should not be done according to POV but by topic. — Ливай | ☺ 21:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An inherently POV fork. By the way, this kind of article is what the Toomanyboxes template was made for (the template can be found on this BJAODN page). Szyslak 21:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I have unknowingly done what this template would have asked for this article, having wikified and removed the {{wikify}} box! Thryduulf 21:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. An editor has apparently moved some ancient Larry Sanger text that was on Talk:Cosmological argument to a separate article. The reason this text was long ago moved to the Talk page in the first place is that despite Sanger's public posturing about the low quality and anti-elitism of Wikipedia (he presumably being part of the elite to which Wikipedia is anti-), Sanger's writing was never very good. Often it was just disconnected lecture notes, as in this case. Further, it doesn't make sense to have this text in a separate article. The rebuttals for the cosmological argument should be in the article itself, and indeed there are rebuttals there already. It is hard to see what this editor was up to, but it doesn't make sense. It is too bad that it takes 5 days to undo dumb moves like this, but in this case it has taken five months for it to be nominated so a few more days isn't going to do any harm. --BM 22:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed w/ BM. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge what can be salvaged and redirect to cosmological argument, and possibly transwiki the rest to Wikibooks. Essay. — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge what can be salvaged into cosmological argument and delete. Do not redirect. Nobody is going to be looking for an entry called "Rebuttals to the cosmological argument." Death to POV breakouts. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: You know "merge and delete" is an invalid vote. — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You might be thinking about "redirect and delete," which wouldn't be invalid, just contradictory. Szyslak 09:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it is not an invalid vote. This has been gone over time and time again. There seems to be an urban legend that a merge-and-delete can't be achieved without violating GFDL. The truth is that a GFDL-kosher merge-and-delete can be done fairly easily if the merged material is the product of a single contributor (all that is needed is proper attribution with a suitable comment in the Talk page of the merged article), and rather more laboriously if it has a complex history (by merging histories, which can be performed by any sysop). Dpbsmith (talk) 14:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. Megan1967 07:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research, POV fork - David Gerard 23:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. JamesBurns 07:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.